Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I created several shapes, line them up and space them with ZERO space between with the align tool.  The shapes are set with no stroke but, there still seems to be space left for the slimmest of strokes.  The image of black blocks was created in Designer.  Space shows even when it's exported.  Shouldn't zero stroke allow the blocks to be next to one another without ANY space?  I am working on creating MANY repeating patterns made from blocks (like quilting) and it would be very helpful to work with shapes with no stroke AND have the shapes "connect" without adding a stroke to fill in that space. 

 image.png.f5af663e6f1c2549633a87ba1f628aed.png  image.png.874b880579765ecffe9d3ff11bf6d575.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @Shelbi,

Welcome to the forums. 

Are those shapes size/position integer values? If not, that's why. Also, have you got "Precise clipping" on in Preferences > Performance?

Thanks,

Gabe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, GabrielM said:

Are those shapes size/position integer values?

I don't understand that question pertaining to this problem.  While the square can be/is 1", once I start moving/using them as needed they may end up being fractions.  Setting position to whole numbers doesn't seem to affect anything.

I set Precise clipping, closed and restarted AD (just to be sure).  Still the same result.

I forgot to put my system info in the question...I'm using Windows 10 and AD 1.7.2.471

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That have been a problem since long time ago so called "anti alias" problem.
You can find many similar topics like below.
 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of solution is to set document unit to pixel.
And set pixel unit decimal pace to zero.(in User Interface preferences)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ashf said:

One of solution is to set document unit to pixel.
And set pixel unit decimal pace to zero.(in User Interface preferences)

Changing the settings didn't work for me.  Besides I need to work in inches because I am making patterns to sew where they will be in inches.  

According to one of the other posts you mentioned, this is by design.  I don't understand why this is the case when clearly people want objects to actually be next to one another without gaps.  This design flaw creates extra work.

Thanks, @ashf for the other posts because a person mentioned export settings, "when I used Bi-linear or Nearest Neighbour algorithm exporting to JPEG - there was no problem with those gaps" and that does work for PNGs as well. So that helps, a lot!

 

EDIT: the export only works vertically.  Horizontal still shows a space.

Edited by Shelbi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, CorelDraw which is 2nd most popular vector graphics software has similar behavior(about gaps)
Though I would like Serif to fix this somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I know about and use that method for seamless patterns but, in some cases I just need blocks\shapes right next to each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you export as a raster format (JPG, PNG, etc) you would be exporting to whole pixels and not fractional pixels. So, if your objects fall in between pixels, you will have gaps. This is not a bug, but just how the software treats that "gap" when mapping the vectors to pixels. You can change to Pixel View to see how and if the gaps are visible. 

13 hours ago, ashf said:

Though I would like Serif to fix this somehow.

Unfortunately, there's nothing to fix as this works as expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having same problem. I tried to change AD and graphics driver settings (Nvidia) , but no positive effect, still got gaps between shapes. In pixel view mode it looks even worse, with kinda antialiasing on shape edges.

First image is vector view, second is pixel view with huge zoom.

Vector_view.PNG

Pixel_view.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 12:38 PM, GabrielM said:

Unfortunately, there's nothing to fix as this works as expected.

Not so sure about this. Have look at the image. Managed to align the vector elements perfectly (View Pixel (Retina). The gaps we see, seem to be rounding errors. Go to Preferences User Interface and change the decimals for Pixel to 6. Go back to the document, look at the Transform panel and you will see, that there are some strange values on position and dimension. Change the values to full pixels and so you have no more gaps.

Maybe this whole too-many-decimals problem should be worked on?

alignment.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joachim_L said:

Managed to align the vector elements perfectly

What did you align them to? grid? other objects? Did you manually type in integer values in the Transform studio and when changing the decimals to 6 the position/size value was different? If so, attach the document and we can have a look. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The image from the post before was with 6 decimal units and aligning it with the transform panel. With my next attached images, I made it to the extreme, so you might see where I see the problem.

Document setup 1 (image units1.jpg): Units in pixel with 0 decimal places. Created a 4 x 4 px "big" square and duplicated it. Zoom level was 11300%. With the transform panel it is impossible to top align both squares. They have indeed the same y coordinates.

Document setup 2 (image units2.jpg): Same document as before, but with 6 decimal places. Have a look at the transform panel how values differ.

So my personal conclusion could be: Set all decimal places to the highest level and work with integers(?) to get a maximum perfection in alignment / precision.

EDIT: I have to revert my report a bit. Everything is fine as long as you are only working pixel perfect with the transform panel, but it gives you problems if you manually create e.g. a square.

units1.jpg

units2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

With my next attached images, I made it to the extreme, so you might see where I see the problem.

It would be helpful if you provided the .afdesign files, rather than (or in addition to) the exported .jpg images.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1903 (18362.356), 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.502 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can do this with any document having 0 decimal places at pixels and creating manually some elements. In the attached example the rectangles are vertical aligned to the middle with a size of 1240 x 855 px. Zoom with Retina view and you seem a bit overlapping and no sharp edges. Switch to 6 decimal places for pixels and you see why.

It seems to be that at least decimal places for pixels are not a good idea?

alignedrectangles.afdesign

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Yes, generally you would not want objects to have fractional pixel sizes like that. Proper use of the snapping options is important (Force Pixel Aalignment on, and usually Move By Whole pixels off) and having at least 1 decimal place (better 2 or 3) for units in px would be good.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1903 (18362.356), 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.502 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Joachim_L, If you set the decimal units to 0, it will only show you an integer value(no decimals), but will still use the correct(exact) value of that object. That option is only changing the display value and not the actual value internally. So, for example if you have 0.123456, with 0 decimals will show as 0, but still use 0.123456 for calculations. Setting the decimal to 0 will not force any fractional values to integer values, but simply won't display any decimals. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@GabrielM I understand what you want to point out, but from my understanding this is causing these "pixel perfect matters". Argglll, I wish my English would be better to tell you my concerns, but I'll try.

I will focus mainly on decimal places for pixels and manually creating objects. Lets say a user set decimal places for pixels to 0 and wants to align two objects of dimension 200x200 px side by side. This user could not do this by manually creating a square which is doable according to the information of the Transform panel. Best practice would be using only the Transform panel for creating / positioning the squares.

Still I am not getting the sense in having decimal places for pixels. How does a 0.00005 pixel look like on a display? Aside from giving errors to the export. Hope I made my concerns clear enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

I will focus mainly on decimal places for pixels and manually creating objects. Lets say a user set decimal places for pixels to 0 and wants to align two objects of dimension 200x200 px side by side.

You can do it if you follow Walt's suggestion.

14 hours ago, walt.farrell said:

Proper use of the snapping options is important (Force Pixel Aalignment on, and usually Move By Whole pixels off)

It's not that your English is not good enough. I'm trying to understand what are you trying to achieve, and why. When we've got something in a place specially designed for this situation (force pixel alignment) and you decide not to use it, there's not much we can do I'm afraid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, understood well what you told. My doctor told me recently, that my ancestors were probable Vikings so I love to prolong the battle here. :D

Question 1a,b,c,d (still not answered): What is a 0.000001 pixel or as Walt suggested a 0.001 pixel? Or how does it look like? Do I get it printed? Does it have an impact using it for web?

Question 2: In which case we could need a pixel unit with 6 decimal places?

Question 3: If we would agree that no decimal unit is needed for the unit pixels, so finally we would need no Force Pixel Alignment?

My thinking is, that a lot of questions regarding blurry edges or thin lines will not occur if there were no decimal places for pixels. But in the end I can live with design decisions made, because all of you offered valid solutions to me. So thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

Question 1a,b,c,d (still not answered): What is a 0.000001 pixel or as Walt suggested a 0.001 pixel? Or how does it look like? Do I get it printed? Does it have an impact using it for web?

You can have 6 decimal places for all our units, including pixels. If you design in inches/mm, your pixel values will most likely be fractional. If you then decide you actually need to export as a raster format and not vector format, having the decimal to 0 will result in an incorrect export - which is the expected behaviour. Again, having 6 decimals does not imply you have to use all 6 of them. 

13 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

Question 2: In which case we could need a pixel unit with 6 decimal places?

You probably won't need 6, but we give you the option. Why not? 

15 minutes ago, Joachim_L said:

Question 3: If we would agree that no decimal unit is needed for the unit pixels, so finally we would need no Force Pixel Alignment?

That's not correct. As above, if you work in MM and export in pixels, you will have fractional values. If you want your images to look correct, you will then need Force Pixel alignment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joachim_L said:

I will focus mainly on decimal places for pixels and manually creating objects. Lets say a user set decimal places for pixels to 0 and wants to align two objects of dimension 200x200 px side by side. This user could not do this by manually creating a square which is doable according to the information of the Transform panel. Best practice would be using only the Transform panel for creating / positioning the squares.

Even if you have your Preferences set to show 0 decimal places, the Transform panel will work.

It will not show you whether an existing object has the correct size, or the correct position, because either the size or position could have a non-integer value as you have mentioned. The Transform panel won't show that, because you've said not to show the decimal places.

However, if you Transform the object, the values you enter into the boxes will be used. For example, if the transform panel said the X/Y for an object were 25 and 25, they might actually be 25.1 and 25.3 which could cause a problem. But if you then type 25px into both boxes, they will be repositioned to exactly 25px.


-- Walt

Windows 10 Home, version 1903 (18362.356), 16GB memory, Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00Gz, GeForce GTX 970
Affinity Photo 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta   / Affinity Designer 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.486 Beta  / Affinity Publisher 1.7.3.481 and 1.8.0.502 Beta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.